Are there any paranormal phenomena AT ALL??

What about the findings from the ganzfeld meta-analysis done by Ersby, Maaneli and Johann (I think) looking at selected and unselected subjects, which was on a more complete pool. Weren't they considerably attenuated?

Linda
If you'll recall, Ersby managed to locate a couple studies with fairly small sample sizes that used selected subjects (sometimes in very weird conditions, such as under the effect of psilocybin), and our collaboration found that their aggregate HR was opposite to the predicted direction. He also found a small number of unselected studies, and those yielded an HR almostly exactly equal to prediction.

When the HR of the selected file-drawer was factored into the overall HR, it brought down the overall Storm (2010) hit rate of selected subjects from 40.1% to ~37%. The unselected file-drawer, however, confirmed the nearly universal ~26% hit rate for unselected participants, and had no effect upon the MA.

Subject selection alone does not guarantee a success rate of 40%; on the contrary, if participants are selected for only one or two traits, their HR is likely to be commensurate with the PRL database, at around 32%. The Storm et al (2010) selected HR of 40.1% reflects the improvement in participant selection from prior databases to more recent ones; stronger correlates have been used, or more of them.
 
If you'll recall, Ersby managed to locate a couple studies with fairly small sample sizes that used selected subjects (sometimes in very weird conditions, such as under the effect of psilocybin), and our collaboration found that their aggregate HR was opposite to the predicted direction. He also found a small number of unselected studies, and those yielded an HR almostly exactly equal to prediction.

When the HR of the selected file-drawer was factored into the overall HR, it brought down the overall Storm (2010) hit rate of selected subjects from 40.1% to ~37%. The unselected file-drawer, however, confirmed the nearly universal ~26% hit rate for unselected participants, and had no effect upon the MA.

Subject selection alone does not guarantee a success rate of 40%; on the contrary, if participants are selected for only one or two traits, their HR is likely to be commensurate with the PRL database, at around 32%. The Storm et al (2010) selected HR of 40.1% reflects the improvement in participant selection from prior databases to more recent ones; stronger correlates have been used, or more of them.
Wish I knew what HR, MA and PRL meant. ;)
 
Top